<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2018 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Back to work.',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<section id="drudgery">
	<h2>University drudgery</h2>
	<p>
		I got the feedback from my submission from a week ago.
		My two-paragraph (as opposed to one paragraph) submission confused my fellow students, resulting in a lower grade than I deserved.
		That was one of the several risks I took by doing what I did, and I regret nothing.
		Of particular note, two of the grading students seemed to have been looking for a single topic sentence that ties together the theme of both paragraphs nicely.
		For that matter, they seemed to look for a single theme that tied both paragraphs together.
		Their themes were juxtaposed though.
		They had completely opposite messages, each with their own topic sentences.
		The thing that I need to keep in mind is that my classmates are complete and total morons.
		Not all of them, of course, but the vast majority.
		This isn&apos;t something new; I&apos;ve seen this time and time again, especially when grading their work.
		A few students do very well, but most show that they clearly don&apos;t grasp the material.
		I can&apos;t and I don&apos;t expect them to understand my own submissions when they get even slightly complex.
		Since the school pulled their crap though, my submissions are now for me and my archive, not for other students and not for the grades.
	</p>
	<p>
		And now ... I wait.
		I mentioned that a poor grade was one of several risks.
		The more worrisome risk is that school staff will get involved, one way or another.
		Perhaps one of the three students reports this thinking that it&apos;ll help me ... because they&apos;re a complete and total moron.
		Or perhaps the professor reads over the submissions as part of their job, and end up escalating this by submitting it to the higher-ups.
		Who knows.
		I&apos;ll be much less nervous at the end of this week, though it won&apos;t be until the end of the term that I&apos;ll be mostly able to say with confidence that nothing more became of this.
	</p>
	<p>
		Anyway ... I think I&apos;m going to put more effort in this week than last week.
		I desperately needed that partial break from trying.
		Now it&apos;s time to get back to work, though honestly, I&apos;m not sure why I&apos;m even going to bother.
		I guess in part because I ran into a wall in my other projects, so school is what&apos;s left.
		I don&apos;t think that&apos;s even close to the whole reason though.
	</p>
	<p>
		My discussion post for the day:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			In the vaccine study, lasting harm was done.
			Despite evidence to the contrary, many people still believe a link between vaccines and autism exist.
			There are even entire Web communities dedicated to ending vaccines because of this issue!
			The scientist should have used a larger sample size if they were going to publish a paper that even hinted there might be a link.
			Furthermore, they should have been honest about their sample selection; for that matter, they should have actually used consecutive sampling!
			They claimed to be taking a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecutive_sampling">consecutive sample</a>, when they actually hand-selected their sample with deliberate intent to to choose data that would fit the case they wanted to make, instead of actually studying the actual reality (Sathyanarayana Rao &amp; Andrade, 2011).
			The scientists also didn&apos;t obtain the necessary ethical clearances before performing the study (Sathyanarayana Rao &amp; Andrade, 2011), and that&apos;s certainly not good, though I&apos;m not sure that had the same lasting harm as the rest of the stunts they pulled.
			Furthermore, it seems like as they were being funded by anti-vaccine lawyers (Sathyanarayana Rao &amp; Andrade, 2011), they were almost taking a bribe to taint their work.
			Scientific studies should never be contaminated in such a way.
			The media could have been more vocal about the correction as well.
			It seems they only covered the fact that the study was a fraud in a minor piece (Sathyanarayana Rao &amp; Andrade, 2011).
			As such, the public didn&apos;t get the message very clearly.
			These days, it was known to be fraud by the majority, but not having exposed it blatantly early on, the idea that vaccines are harmful had time to get a death grip on a segment of the population.
			As for the public, they could learn to accept the reality of science.
			One little falsified study has caused some people to reject vaccines, despite several larger studies done to contradict this conclusion.
			Science says vaccines don&apos;t cause autism.
			And how could they?
			Autism is genetic.
			It&apos;s like saying vaccines are what turned me queer.
			It simply isn&apos;t how things work.
		</p>
		<p>
			The Stanford prison experiment was horrifying, and not at all what I thought it&apos;d be.
			Short term, it did a lot of harm to the individuals participating in it.
			However, aside from the horrible memories, the harm done there is over now.
			In fact, it did help us understand human psychology a bit better.
			I&apos;m not saying the experiment was by any means okay, but it wasn&apos;t as harmful as the falsified vaccine study.
			As for what the scientist could have done, there were numerous points at which things escalated; numerous points at which to end the study and prevent further harm.
			As the head researcher said, the experiment should have ended on the second day (Leithead, 2011).
			I&apos;m not sure the media or the public had any way to help though, as the study became public after its conclusion.
			(Hopefully the video on that page isn&apos;t too important.
			It seems to require Adobe Flash to play, and I don&apos;t have that.)
		</p>
		<div class="APA_references">
			<h2>References:</h2>
			<p>
				Leithead, A. (2011, August 17). Stanford prison experiment continues to shock. Retrieved from <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-14564182"><code>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-14564182</code></a>
			</p>
			<p>
				Sathyanarayana Rao, T. S., &amp; Andrade, C. (2011, June). The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/"><code>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/</code></a>
			</p>
		</div>
	</blockquote>
	<p>
		Depending on how the discussion goes, I may be free to speak in my journal without censorship for a couple days.
		Specifically, Monday and Tuesday.
		That&apos;s only if I make the bare minimum number of required posts though.
		If I end up responding to responses again, as I very likely will, the wall of redaction will continue as scheduled.
	</p>
</section>
END
);
